I (Con) will argue that a total Gun Ban (The Outlawing Of All Guns) would only be a detriment to society. My Opponent (Pro) shall argue that Gun Bans (As Previously Defined) have positive effect on society. I will now take the exactly 109 characters to thank the voters in advance for voting according to who should win. I (Con) will now argue to my fullest beliefs and to my greatest potential. * Sources are to be provided at the end of the debate (round 3).

Contention A
To place gun bans on any US manufactured firearm would harm our economy and our military. Our gun manufactures take out contracts from the military, and use the concept of Supply and Demand in order to supply civilians. Do to the fact that these manufacturers rely on the Private sector, these companies would fail. With no companies to supply arms, our military would suffer as well.

Contention B
To think for a second that gun control is possible, you would have to be crazy. In the USA their are 90 guns to every hundred people. That is roughly 271 Million guns (According to source, math not checked) that you would have to track down. A different source even states "only 41.3% of the registered owners actually admitted to gun ownership."

Contention C
2.5 million lives saved by guns per year. That is two times the population of Hawaii! I can only close this contention with a quote by Thomas Jefferson.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

I affirm today's resolution, that the outlawing of guns would result in a positive impact of the society. Before I continue, I would like to remind the voters to be impartial, to vote for whoever displays the argumet. I don't want a false win, and I'm sure my opponent does not either. Now, with my case. My value for the round shall be peace, for what we are attempting to discover today if what action will best satisfy society, and if a society i at peace is it not satisfied? My value criterion, therefore, shall be utilitarianism, for if the greatest amount of individuals are served their good, would they not be peaceful, thus making a majority of the society peaceful? To augment my points I offer three contentions for the round.

Firstly, I would like to point out the significant increase in deaths due to the use of guns. In the year 2001, 150,000 gun homicides were reported in the U.K., which happens to have gun control implemented. This number is meager compared to the 600,000 homicides within the U.S., a number fourfold that of Britain's. This is because people are allowed to carry these lethal weapons freely. With a simple store-bought license, they have access to a deadly weapon, one which can be used from afar without any knowledge by the victim. The results have shown, with less guns comes less death. Therefore, less violence occurs, a desire shared by all, and through that peace is achieved, because withoutvolence lies peace.

Secondly, guns are an unncessary department to which money is being spent by the government. As it is well known by this point, America is still in a financial crisis. Companies failing every day, the stock market ravaged. Why would it be logical, in this bleak time, to frivoulously spend government funds?Hundreds of thousands of weapons are created for the public, which would not be need if this ban was enforced, tereby saving tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Also, if all guns were banned, where would the main weapon of war go? Without guns, war would be illgocial for lack of anything to fight with. Therefore, as opposed to setting aside a budget for huge agencies such as the army. Instead, peace talks and cooperation could be accomplished, all while saving funds. Therefore, guns are detrimental to the society both physically and economically, and their removal would ring about cofort and peace.

Thirdly, and finally, the need for sectrity would be greatrly lessended. With the removal of the gun comes the removal of a possibility of long-distance attacks. Thus, everyone's safety would be improved. Also, if no one can attack with a gun, it would be illogical to HAVE to fight back with a gun. The situation does not necesitate it; therefore, it is extraneous.

I wish my opponent best of luck and will see him in Round 2. *Note, this was done a 2 in the morning.

As my opponent shall use "Peace" as his stance, I shall use logic.
If my opponent doesn't mind, I'll stick to my format. I find that it is far more organized.

Contention A
To say that without guns we have peace is beyond illogical. In fact the opposite is far more likely, and is statistically proven to be so. According to my opponent's numbers, the UK is in worse shape than the US. My opponent forgot to take population in to account. According to my opponents number's, 1 in every 406 (Rounded down from 406.2) people will be killed with a gun in the UK. In the US, 1 in every 507 (Rounded Up from 506.7) people will be killed with a gun. I will now use my opponents quote, "This is because people are allowed to carry these lethal weapons freely."

Contention B
I find my opponents argument very contradictory at various points. I will now compare quotes.
"As it is well known by this point, America is still in a financial crisis."
"Hundreds of thousands of weapons are created for the public, which would not be need if this ban was enforced..."

My opponent is correct in both statements, however he failed to "connect the dots". Yes, we are in a financial crisis, but the sale of guns will only stimulate our economy. The more guns their are, the more products used. The more products used the more jobs created. The more jobs created, the more money is flowing. The more money that flows, the more money to buy guns. According to statistics, the more guns, the more peace.

"Without guns, war would be illogical for lack of anything to fight with."
My opponent has a very flawed argument at his hands. War would be highly logical if he had nothing to fight with... For the enemy. Any nation that wishes to harm us, or for that matter, any rebel group in America that wishes to overthrow the government. My opponent also fails to realize that the police are supplied by gun manufactures as well.

"Therefore, guns are detrimental to the society both physically and economically..."
Summery:
Societal effect of guns: Positive
Economic effect of guns: Positive

Contention C
The need for security would go up by far. Without Police, National Guard, or even a 9MM under your mattress, you are unarmed, and the criminal is armed with a gun. A criminal is someone who fails to obey the law. This question is directed at my opponent. What makes you think over 400 million guns can be tracked down, when over 50% aren't registered? You should realize that this is the only way for criminals to not have guns, and even then they can produce them. Think this question over hard, it will decide the debate.

Due to the fact that My opponent failed to defend his points in R2, I shall simply carry them to my R3.

R2 Arguments that my opponent failed to defend against.

Contention A
To say that without guns we have peace is beyond illogical. In fact the opposite is far more likely, and is statistically proven to be so. According to my opponent's numbers, the UK is in worse shape than the US. My opponent forgot to take population in to account. According to my opponents number's, 1 in every 406 (Rounded down from 406.2) people will be killed with a gun in the UK. In the US, 1 in every 507 (Rounded Up from 506.7) people will be killed with a gun. I will now use my opponents quote, "This is because people are allowed to carry these lethal weapons freely."

Contention B
I find my opponents argument very contradictory at various points. I will now compare quotes.
"As it is well known by this point, America is still in a financial crisis."
"Hundreds of thousands of weapons are created for the public, which would not be need if this ban was enforced..."

My opponent is correct in both statements, however he failed to "connect the dots". Yes, we are in a financial crisis, but the sale of guns will only stimulate our economy. The more guns their are, the more products used. The more products used the more jobs created. The more jobs created, the more money is flowing. The more money that flows, the more money to buy guns. According to statistics, the more guns, the more peace.

"Without guns, war would be illogical for lack of anything to fight with."
My opponent has a very flawed argument at his hands. War would be highly logical if he had nothing to fight with... For the enemy. Any nation that wishes to harm us, or for that matter, any rebel group in America that wishes to overthrow the government. My opponent also fails to realize that the police are supplied by gun manufactures as well.

"Therefore, guns are detrimental to the society both physically and economically..."
Summery:
Societal effect of guns: Positive
Economic effect of guns: Positive

Contention C
The need for security would go up by far. Without Police, National Guard, or even a 9MM under your mattress, you are unarmed, and the criminal is armed with a gun. A criminal is someone who fails to obey the law. This question is directed at my opponent. What makes you think over 400 million guns can be tracked down, when over 50% aren't registered? You should realize that this is the only way for criminals to not have guns, and even then they can produce them. Think this question over hard, it will decide the debate.

Overall Summery

A. Gun Bans are unconstitutional.
B. Gun Bans can only cause more war than peace.
C. Crimes rise with gun bans.
D. Our military, and police force would suffer greatly with gun bans.
E. The UK is in worse shape than us when it comes to gun crimes.

RFD:CON
(1) I agreed with CON before the debate.
(2) I agreed with CON after the debate.
(3) CON had better conduct. PRO forfeited two rounds.
(4) Spelling and grammar was a TIE. CON had better grammar, PRO had better spelling.
(5) CON made the more convincing arguments. PRO mentioned homicides but failed to tie them to gun use, as he did UK statistics. Then CON proved that, even assuming every homicide was gun related, statistically you had a better chance of being shot in a country with more stringent gun control laws.
(6) CON was the only debater to use sources.

A very large part of this debate is missing, and that is that the right to bare arms was instituted not only to protect civilians from one another, but more importantly to protect civilians from their government.

Were it possible to track down all of the guns owned by civilians in the US (or any other country for that matter), than the only guns owned would be in the hands of the government. Frankly, that is a bad position for any country to be in, as it easily fosters a military state.

Also, if a national ban on guns was introduced, more police would be required in order to provide security for the people. This in turn leads to an increase in taxes, especially in urban areas, and has a sizeable and negative impact economically. NYC for example has over 40 thousand registered police officers, a number that rivals the armies of some small countries.

A gun ban also has other effects, such as limiting or banning the use of other weapons, such as knives etc. Using NYC as an example again, it is illegal to carry even a small pocket knife if your intent for carrying it is for the purpose of self defense. Laws that regulate and ban insight even more laws that regulate and ban. That is the nature of this argument.